IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sej/ancoec/v694y2003p966-977.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Latent Structure Approach to Measuring Reputation

Author

Listed:
  • Kwamena K. Quagrainie

    (Aquaculture/Fisheries Center, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff)

  • Jill J. McCluskey

    () (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Washington State University)

  • Maria L. Loureiro

    (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University)

Abstract

The present study provides estimates of reputation as a dynamic latent variable that is determined by price premiums and market data. Further, it analyzes the effect of extrinsic factors on reputation. Specifically, this study seeks to (i) quantify the reputation of Washington apples over time, (ii) study the dynamic nature of reputation, and (iii) analyze the effect of the label “Washington Apple.” The model adopted in this study is the dynamic multiple-indicator multiple-cause (DYMIMIC) modeling approach, which is a special case of the general latent variable modeling scheme called “state-space” models. Both DYMIMIC and hedonic approaches are applied to the data on Washington apples, and results from the two approaches are compared.

Suggested Citation

  • Kwamena K. Quagrainie & Jill J. McCluskey & Maria L. Loureiro, 2003. "A Latent Structure Approach to Measuring Reputation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 966-977, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:sej:ancoec:v:69:4:y:2003:p:966-977
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rondeau, Daniel & D. Schulze, William & Poe, Gregory L., 1999. "Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 455-470, June.
    2. Haab, Timothy C. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "Referendum Models and Negative Willingness to Pay: Alternative Solutions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-270, February.
    3. Thomas C. Brown & Patricia A. Champ & Richard C. Bishop & Daniel W. McCollum, 1996. "Which Response Format Reveals the Truth about Donations to a Public Good?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 152-166.
    4. Edward Balistreri & Gary McClelland & Gregory Poe & William Schulze, 2001. "Can Hypothetical Questions Reveal True Values? A Laboratory Comparison of Dichotomous Choice and Open-Ended Contingent Values with Auction Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 18(3), pages 275-292, March.
    5. Bengt Kristrom, 1990. "A Non-Parametric Approach to the Estimation of Welfare Measures in Discrete Response Valuation Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(2), pages 135-139.
    6. Robert Deacon & Charles Kolstad & Allen Kneese & David Brookshire & David Scrogin & Anthony Fisher & Michael Ward & Kerry Smith & James Wilen, 1998. "Research Trends and Opportunities in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 383-397, April.
    7. Rose, Steven K. & Clark, Jeremy & Poe, Gregory L. & Rondeau, Daniel & Schulze, William D., 2002. "The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 131-155, February.
    8. Karen Blumenschein & Magnus Johannesson & Glenn C. Blomquist & Bengt Liljas & Richard M. O’Conor, 1998. "Experimental Results on Expressed Certainty and Hypothetical Bias in Contingent Valuation," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 169-177, July.
    9. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489, April.
    10. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
    11. Marks, Melanie & Croson, Rachel, 1998. "Alternative rebate rules in the provision of a threshold public good: An experimental investigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 195-220, February.
    12. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    13. Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
    14. Cummings, Ronald G, et al, 1997. "Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 105(3), pages 609-621, June.
    15. Champ, Patricia A. & Bishop, Richard C. & Brown, Thomas C. & McCollum, Daniel W., 1997. "Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 151-162, June.
    16. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    17. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    18. David A. Harpman & Michael P. Welsh, 1999. "Measuring Goodness of Fit for the Double-Bounded Logit Model: Comment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 81(1), pages 235-237.
    19. Ready Richard C. & Whitehead John C. & Blomquist Glenn C., 1995. "Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 181-196, September.
    20. Dubourg, W R & Jones-Lee, M W & Loomes, Graham, 1994. "Imprecise Preferences and the WTP-WTA Disparity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 115-133, October.
    21. Richard C. Ready & Ståle Navrud & RW. Richard Dubourg, 2001. "How Do Respondents with Uncertain Willingness to Pay Answer Contingent Valuation Questions?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(3), pages 315-326.
    22. Cropper, Maureen L & Oates, Wallace E, 1992. "Environmental Economics: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(2), pages 675-740, June.
    23. Mattias Boman & Göran Bostedt & Bengt Kriström, 1999. "Obtaining Welfare Bounds in Discrete-Response Valuation Studies: A Non-Parametric Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(2), pages 284-294.
    24. Welsh, Michael P. & Poe, Gregory L., 1998. "Elicitation Effects in Contingent Valuation: Comparisons to a Multiple Bounded Discrete Choice Approach," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 170-185, September.
    25. Opaluch, James J. & Segerson, Kathleen, 1989. "Rational Roots Of "Irrational" Behavior: New Theories Of Economic Decision-Making," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 18(2), October.
    26. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    27. Robert G. Ethier & Gregory L. Poe & William D. Schulze & Jeremy Clark, 2000. "Comparison of Hypothetical Phone and Mail Contingent Valuation Responses for Green-Pricing Electricity Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 76(1), pages 54-67.
    28. Patricia Champ & Richard Bishop, 2001. "Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(4), pages 383-402, August.
    29. Brian Roach & Kevin J. Boyle & Michael Welsh, 2002. "Testing Bid Design Effects in Multiple-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 121-131.
    30. Johannesson, Magnus & Blomquist, Glenn C. & Blumenschein, Karen & Johansson, Per-olov & Liljas, Bengt & O'Conor, Richard M., 1999. "Calibrating Hypothetical Willingness to Pay Responses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(1), pages 21-32, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Janvier D. Nkurunziza, 2005. "Reputation and Credit without Collateral in Africa`s Formal Banking," Economics Series Working Papers WPS/2005-02, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    2. He, Chenyi & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa & Guan, Zhengfei, 2016. "Impact of Sensory Quality and Labels on Consumer Preference of Fresh Strawberries," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230122, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    4. Rouviere, Elodie & Soubeyran, Raphael, 2008. "Collective Reputation, Entry and Minimum Safety Standard," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 44465, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Jason A. Winfree & Jill J. McCluskey, 2005. "Collective Reputation and Quality," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(1), pages 206-213.
    6. Mukherji, Ananda & Mukherji, Jyotsna & Dibrell, Clay & Francis, John D., 2013. "Overbidding in cross-border acquisitions: Misperceptions in assessing and valuing knowledge," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 39-46.
    7. Marco A. Palma & Alba J. Collart & Christopher J. Chammoun, 2015. "Information Asymmetry in Consumer Perceptions of Quality-Differentiated Food Products," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 596-612, November.
    8. Alexander E. Saak, 2012. "Collective Reputation, Social Norms, and Participation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(3), pages 763-785.
    9. Rutherford, William & McGimpsey, William & Narayan, Prakash, 2013. "Evaluation of New Zealand’s regulatory framework to support the reputation of horticultural commodity exports," 2013 Conference, August 28-30, 2013, Christchurch, New Zealand 187038, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Deselnicu, Oana C. & Costanigro, Marco & Souza-Monteiro, Diogo M. & McFadden, Dawn Thilmany, 2013. "A Meta-Analysis of Geographical Indication Food Valuation Studies: What Drives the Premium for Origin-Based Labels?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), August.
    11. McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "Consumer Preferences And Willingness To Pay For Food Labeling: A Discussion Of Empirical Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(03), November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sej:ancoec:v:69:4:y:2003:p:966-977. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Laura Razzolini). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/seaaaea.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.